It's time to talk about the Settlements
Settlements and Outposts in the West Bank.
One of the major rebuttals to Israel’s right to defend itself has consistently been the Settlements in the West Bank. To be frank though, no amount of settlement anger will ever justify the brutality of October 7, but we still need to be honest and transparent about what Israel needs to do better. So I think its time we spoke honestly about the Settlements.
For a little background, Settlements are Israeli civilian communities in territories acquired by Israel in the 1967 Six-Day War, that are not under Israeli sovereignty. While Israeli settlements previously existed in Sinai and the Gaza Strip prior to Israel’s withdrawal from those territories, today the term is largely used to refer to Israeli communities in the West Bank (also known as Judea and Samaria).
Legal settlements must be built on state land, have building permits from the government, and be established by a government resolution. Settlements that do not meet those criteria are called West Bank Outposts, which are illegal under Israeli law.
The consensus view in the international community is that the existence of Israeli settlements in the West Bank including East Jerusalem and the Golan Heights is in violation of international law, but these international bodies have no real jurisdiction to do anything. However international bodies like the UN and the ICJ have been notoriously biased against Israel. And its very easy to have an opinion when your neighbour doesn’t want to wipe you out. Like anything involving Israel and the ‘Palestinians’ its complicated, and topped with a thick layer of distrust.
Ironically it was as a result of the 6-day war where ‘Palestinian’ guerrilla groups based in Syria, Lebanon, and Jordan attacked Israel. As a result of the conflict, Israel gained control over the Sinai peninsula, the Golan Heights, the West Bank, the Gaza Strip and East Jerusalem. The Arab countries’ losses in the conflict were disastrous. The UN Security Council called for a ceasefire on June 7 that was immediately accepted by Israel and Jordan— (note: Israel accepts a ceasefire, despite being overwhelmingly victorious in a war they didn’t start). Egypt accepted the following day. Syria held out, however, and continued to bomb villages in northern Israel. On June 9 Israel launched an assault on the fortified Golan Heights, capturing it from Syrian forces. Syria accepted the cease-fire on June 10.
Now here is the interesting bit, months after the war, the United Nations passed UN Resolution 242, which called for Israel’s withdrawal from the territories it had captured in exchange for lasting peace. Are you picking up on a trend? Opponents instigate a war with Israel, Israel wins, the UN gets involved and Israel is pressured to make concessions. Israel under international persuasion is required to withdraw from the West Bank for a lasting peace—one that has never come to pass.
So the Palestinians are now occupying land that was previously occupied by Israelis who won the land during a war that was started by the Palestinians, who gave up the land for a peace that never happened, who are now starting settlements in the West Bank that is occupied by Palestinians, but under Israeli military occupation. Got it? See what I mean about complex?
Although there is a difference of opinion on the legitimacy of the Settlements by the citizens of Israel, the main objective of the Israeli government in allowing the Settlements was always justified as security. By placing Israeli civilians in strategic areas of the West Bank it solidified Israel’s control, seeking to ensure that the territory’s political future would be consistent with the country’s security needs, as well as acting as the first line of defence against an invasion. It would be hard to blame Israel for this line of thinking, based on what we witnessed in October last year. Israel fear that a complete withdrawal from the West Bank will create another ‘Gaza’ type situation that will become a new hotbed for jihadists and corruption. The Palestinians, of course, want full control of the West Bank, free from Israeli occupation and involvement.
Then we have the Outposts, which are unauthorised or illegal Israeli settlement within the West Bank, constructed without the required authorisation from the Israeli government in contravention of Israeli statutes regulating planning and construction—but more often than not, officials look the other way. Regardless of the history of the land, Outposts are all but assured to further stoke tensions in an already simmering tinderbox. There are numerous reports of ‘Palestinians’ living in the rural areas of the region who are fearful of Jewish settler violence and displacements due to aggressive West Bank Outposts operators.
Of course it’s easy to feel sorry for the ‘Palestinians’. Yet I can’t help but see the same narratives here playing over and over again. The bigotry of low expectations ensures that Israel is held to an ever increasingly higher standard than that of the ‘Palestinians’ or the Palestinian Authority. Instead of utilising their own governing authority or taking responsibility for their own plight, or the terrorism within their ranks that requires constant military supervision, the ‘Palestinians’ blame all their woes on Israel.
Interestingly, the per capita income in Gaza is about a fifth of that in the West Bank, despite the billions in aid that has funnelled into Gaza over the years, and the citizens of the West Bank enjoy a much better quality of life than those in Gaza. There is no reason to think that the full withdrawal of Israel from the West Bank would end up any different to that of their poorer counterparts in Gaza—oppressed under the heavy weight of a corrupt islamic Griftocracy.
So while it is understandable to want the ‘Palestinians’ to be accorded more rights and autonomy in the territories of the West Bank, it remains an impossible option for Israel to allow at the probable expense of the safety of its own citizens. Primarily Israels responsibility is to her own citizens safety first. Ironically Hamas and the Palestinian Authority are responsible for the safety of their own. If Israel demilitarises, Islamists plan attacks. If the West Bank is given jurisdiction over the area, who is given the governing authority? And who overseas the governing authority to ensure it doesn’t fall to the same fate as Gaza?
The shell-game of it is that, according to the PA and Hamas, the “settlements” mean all of Israel, from the river to the sea, and not just Judea and Samaria.
Just a few refinements to your article....
You wrote: "Ironically it was as a result of the 6-day war where ‘Palestinian’ guerrilla groups based in Syria, Lebanon, and Jordan attacked Israel. As a result of the conflict, Israel gained control over the Sinai peninsula, the Golan Heights, the West Bank, the Gaza Strip and East Jerusalem."
Yes, you call this the 6-day war (6-Day War) and then you say "As a result of the conflict, Israel gained control' -- no, as a result of the war, Israel liberated/regained control/recaptured Judea and Samaria (aka the West Bank, as the Jordanian occupiers renamed it), the Gaza Strip, and the eastern neighbourhoods of Jerualem and, most importantly, the Old City of Jerusalem. They captured the Sinai peninsula as well. I have not yet explored the earlier status of the Golan before it was in Syrian hands so I cannot say anything about that until I do.
Our building communities in Judea-Samaria is not primarily for security reasons as you write. It is primarily because that is the seat of our indigenous homeland. That is where our ancestors established our peoplehood. Our sacred sites are there. Ancient Jewish villages that were wiped out by Arab colonialists (from the Arab Conquest in the 600s and then in 1948) are there. It is part of our homeland. And....as things stand now, with Arabs still intent on wiping us out, our communities there do serve as a buffer for the narrow densely populated center of the country. But security is not the reason for their re-establishment any more than Haifa and Tel Aviv are there for security reasons.
You write: "There are numerous reports of ‘Palestinians’ living in the rural areas of the region who are fearful of Jewish settler violence and displacements due to aggressive West Bank Outposts operators." Here you show you have fallen for the propaganda. The 'Palestinians' do not fear Jewish settler violence -- they instigate it. They provoke it so that then they can film Jews being violent to show the world and increase opposition to Jewish communities in Judea-Samaria. I have done a few reports on how they do this (here is one: https://ozsheri.substack.com/p/revisiting-my-investigation-into) and I will repost more of them on substack in the coming weeks. I have not yet investigated the recent attack in Jitt and it does appear to be a rare instance of pure Jewish vigilantism. (NOTE: rare)
And why do you keep calling Judea-Samaria by the occupation name, the west bank? The real name for the region is Judea and Samaria. It is important that we stop using the occupation name, just like we have stopped calling the the Inuit 'Eskimos.'